Excerpts

Ca breast status exhibited a highly significant association with RA risk (OR = 0.36, p < 0.001), with RA patients showing substantially lower odds (64% reduction) of Ca breast compared to the non-RA group.

The chi-square test is highly significant (p < 0.001), which means that SNP variant frequency (C/C, T/C, T/T) varies significantly in asthmatic and non-asthmatic individuals.

The C/N ratio exerted a highly significant effect on cumulative biogas yield (F = 16.17, p = 0.001).

The statistical analysis revealed a highly significant difference in plasma apelin concentrations based on CAD severity (Mann–Whitney U = 843, p <0.001).

The relationship between phenotypes showed a highly significant and positive correlation among SL/SW/CD ( p < 0.001), CD/CL/SW/SL ( p < 0.01), RL/RW/SL/SW/CL ( p < 0.001), and was significant among RW/CD and RL/CD ( p < 0.05) ( Figure 1 e).

Use of PRF resulted in statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001) increased GT at 6 months’ time point as compared to participants treated with CAF without PRF, which indicates clinical and esthetic benefits achieved through the procedure.

Both anxiety and depression scores were found to be highly significant predictors of poor work ability ( p < 0.001).

Pearson's correlation analysis revealed that the distance between the head of OMI (HOMI) and IRML (HOMI to IRML) increased with an increase in the placement angle, with highly significant (positive) correlations between the two parameters ( p < 0.001).

The comparison of the scores of right and left ears for ADDT in bilinguals also showed a highly significant difference ( P =0.001).

This difference between the groups was statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001) and applied for all individual PCB congeners on a wet weight basis.

Furthermore, the radiopacity index of test material (Nano CS) was found to be more when compared to dentin, though, less when compared to the enamel specimens with the results being statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001).

Differences became significant at 17 weeks for PlGF (P = 0.009) alone, and were highly significant for PlGF and the sFLT-1/PIGF ratio at 24 weeks (P < 0.001).

p < 0.01 was considered a highly significant difference and is indicated as error bars with **. *** means p < 0.001; **** means p < 0.0001.

In both cases with an increase and a decrease in NSD, the preoperatively measured deviations showed a highly significant difference compared to postoperative NSDs (both p < 0.001).

Single, double, and triple asterisks indicate differences that are statistically significant ( P < 0.05 or P < 0.01) or highly significant ( P < 0.001), respectively.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) validated the model’s reliability ( F = 13.86, p = 0.005) and highlighted ethanol concentration as a highly significant factor ( p < 0.001).

Serum Hormonal Profile Figure 4 reveals a highly significant increase ( p < 0.001) in serum testosterone levels in the LS, OM, FH, ES, and MIX groups after 60 days of treatment with plant extracts compared with the control.

Statistically significant changes were classified as significant ( ∗ ) where p < 0.05, more significant ( ∗∗ ) where p < 0.01, and highly significant ( ∗∗∗ ) where p < 0.001.

We found highly significant differences in ethnoracial distribution according to county designation (Figure 1; p < 0.001; Fisher’s exact) and in both state and national Area Deprivation Index scores (ADI; Figure 2; p <0.0001, one‐way ANOVA).

For instance, the variation in DIZ was highly significant ( p < 0.001) for multifloral honey (S5) against S. aureus (MSSA) ATCC 25923.

Overall, the prevalence of psychological symptoms for all five physical assessment indicators (BMI, WC, WHtR, ABSI, and BRI) showed an increasing trend from Q1 to Q4 ( p < 0.001).

This effect was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

* p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance, ** p < 0.01 was highly significant difference and *** p < 0.001 extremely significant difference.

The heterogeneity in RRs was highly significant and the differences between the countries, as opposed to chance, accounted for an estimated 82% of the variation in the pooled rate (p<0.001, I 2 =82.1% (95% CI 63.8% to 100%)).

Analysis of maximum decrease in systolic blood pressure during the procedure showed that the maximum systolic blood pressure decrease was 9.94 ± 11.51% in the phenylephrine group compared to 22.47 ± 7.75% in the control group, representing a highly significant difference (mean difference 12.53%, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.28).